Ryzen 3 210 vs EPYC 72F3
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 72F3 outperforms Ryzen 3 210 by a whopping 116% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 426 | 1050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.39 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.05 | 26.89 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Milan (2021−2023) | Hawk Point (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 12 January 2021 (4 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,468 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm+ | 4 nm |
| Die size | 8x 81 mm2 | 137 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33,200 million | 20,900 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP3 | FP7 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, SSSE3 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.795 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon 740M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 72F3 and Ryzen 3 210.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 14 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.99 | 7.85 |
| Recency | 12 January 2021 | 6 January 2025 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 28 Watt |
EPYC 72F3 has a 116.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Ryzen 3 210, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 542.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 72F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 3 210 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 72F3 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 3 210 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
